Sunday, 24 April 2011

The People claims it has a 'picture exclusive' on its front page today:

The implication, of course, is that these are pictures from Prince William's stag do, in advance of his wedding on Friday. The article begins:

He kept his stag do top secret, but these are the antics Prince William can get up to when he really lets his hair down.

Our world exclusive pictures show Wills the student larking around with TWO feather boas while in his boxer shorts.

Then they reveal:

The prince gyrated in front of a girl pal during the wild 21st birthday party of James Tollemache, the son of a lord...

It was December 2002, when 20-year-old Wills was on the Christmas break of his second year at the University of St Andrews – but had yet to start dating Kate Middleton.

So The People has dug up photos that are over eight years old, stuck them on the front page at a time when interest in Prince William is so high and given the strong impression they are new. It seems The People has been picking up tips on front page 'exclusives' from the Daily Star.

The Mail called Jefferies 'Mr Strange', 'the 'nutty professor' and 'Professor Strange'. He 'idolised a poet obsessed by death', they claimed. The Mirror called him a 'peeping tom'. The Sun called him 'strange' and 'obsessed by death' and in one article, as Anton pointed out, he was described as:

Mr Christopher Jefferies has today given notice of libel and privacy claims against a large number of national and local newspapers in relation to articles published by them in December 2010 and January 2011.

The newspapers include The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star among others. Mr Jefferies will be seeking vindication of his reputation for the terrible treatment he received. Mr Jefferies will not be making any statement about these claims until their conclusion, which he hopes will be in the very near future.

Simons Muirhead & Burton partner, Louis Charalambous, who also represented Robert Murat, leads the team representing Mr Jefferies in these libel and privacy claims.

In view of our concerns about the material under consideration in this case, and the fact that we considered it was at the limit of acceptability for transmission before the 21:00 watershed, Ofcom is requiring the compliance licensee to attend a meeting to discuss the approach taken to ensuring that the programme complied with the requirements of the Code.

However, it wasn't only The X Factor that came in for some criticism from Ofcom:

Approximately 2,000 of the 2,868 complaints about this programme were received following coverage about the performances in a daily national newspaper. The newspaper coverage reported on concerns that the performances were too explicit for a family programme, and included a number of still images of the performances.

However, from a comparison of the images it is clear that the photographs that were published in the newspaper were significantly more graphic and close-up than the material that had been broadcast in the programme, and had been taken from a different angle to the television cameras. Readers of the newspaper would have therefore been left with the impression that the programme contained significantly more graphic material than had actually been broadcast.

Hmm. Now which paper could Ofcom be referring to? Could it possibly be the Mail, which infamously published several photos in a double page spread under the not-exactly-convincing headline:

We apologise to readers but you have to see these pictures to understand the fury they've stirred.

Their online article about Ofcom's decision helpfully includes 11 pictures and two videos, with the handy information 'Scroll down to see video of the performances...' in bold at the top.

Although this article mentions the criticism of the 'national daily newspaper' the Mail website has, unusually, decided not to allow comments. Why would that be?

If the Mail really thinks this was too much, why make the pictures and videos so freely available so often? And, of course, all this faux outrage is from a newspaper whose website is obsessed with publishing 'racy' photographs of singers and actresses (such as these of Rihanna, at one of her own shows), which made their coverage more than a little hypocritical.

"We note that the Ofcom report did not actually name any newspaper itself – but it has been suggested in other media that they were referring to the Daily Mail.

"We wholly reject any criticism, which Ofcom may or may not be making.

"The fact is that all the pictures we used were provided by ITV and X Factor's official photographic agency – with the exception of one, which was an actual screen-grab of the show's transmission. They gave an accurate and fair representation of the show. We also made it clear why we felt it was important to show them.

"Thousands of our readers had clearly been incensed by the programme before we carried the pictures. What we raised was the legitimate question as to whether these scenes were suitable for pre-watershed TV and presented the facts in a fair and reasonable manner."

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

In an article on January 18, 2011 headed “Brady’s text shame adds more mayhem to Hammers madness” we claimed that Karren Brady, vice-chairman of West Ham United, had sent text messages to a number of players encouraging them to rise up against the manager Avram Grant and demand his sacking. We now accept that Ms Brady never sent any such text messages.

On 26 January 2011 we published an article headed “Richard Keys daughter Jemma defends her dad in sexism row” in which we quoted, in error, Jemma Keys, the daughter of former Sky TV presenter Richard Keys, saying that in a private conversation Ms Brady had laughed and joked with Mr Keys about his comments. This was despite reporting that Ms Brady had publicly condemned the sexist comments made by Mr Keys.

In fact, no conversation took place between Ms Brady and Mr Keys. We apologise to Ms Brady for these untrue allegations. We have agreed to pay her damages and legal costs.

Just as Mike Yarwood, an acclaimed impersonator of Harold Wilson in his day, never really appeared to get over Margaret Thatcher's election as prime minister, Rory Bremner is suffering at the hands of the Coalition.

The amiable comic tells Mandrake that his disappearance from our television screens since David Cameron won power has not been by choice.

My sympathies are with Rory Bremner, who says he is having an enforced sabbatical from television.

Just as Mike Yarwood’s career nose-dived when Harold Wilson departed the scene, so Rory is struggling to survive the demise of New Labour.

Where does he get it from?

In the Mandrake piece, Bremner says:

"It would be great to do more television, but it's all gone very quiet on that front and I don't know why that is," he says. "I must have upset somebody somewhere. I'm having what you might call a slightly enforced sabbatical."

This isn't quite the same as what Littlejohn claims, who says it's all to do with the absence of recognisable characters:

How do you do an impression of, say, Andrew Lansley? And if you did, would anyone recognise it?

Why did Littlejohn pick on Lansley, in particular? From Mandrake:

Happily, however, he has a stage tour coming up, but Andrew Lansley, the health secretary who has been much in the news recently, looks unlikely to be included among the impersonations.

However, Littlejohn admits something that some of us have suspected for some time:

For instance, Bolton NHS is frittering £75,000 on a scheme which involves buying mobile phones for alcoholics.The idea is that health workers will send a daily text message to patients recovering from alcohol addiction...

Saturday, 16 April 2011

Quotes from a Close Friend is a new 'media watching' blog which began last month and aims to highlight bad journalism and, in particular, celebrity gossip, political news and other stories which are based on the words of 'close friends' and anonymous sources.

Because only the day before, I had read this old BBC story from 2003, which reappeared briefly in the ‘most popular: shared’ box on the front page of the BBC News website. It described a paper by a Dr Fox (sadly not the DJ or politician) – published in a medical journal – which recorded the various acronyms used by doctors to covertly describe their patient.

And as Quotes from a Close Friend points out, it's not just the same story, but it includes several rather familar sentences:

From the BBC:

Thus rheumatology, considered by hard-pressed juniors one of the less busy specialties, becomes “rheumaholiday”, the “Freud Squad” are psychiatrists, and “Gassers” and “Slashers” are anaesthetists and general surgeons respectively.

And from the Mail:

For example rheumatology, considered to be one of the less busy specialties, is ‘rheumaholiday’, the ‘Freud Squad’ are psychiatrists, ‘Gassers’ are anaesthetists and ‘slashers’ general surgeons.

They add:

To be fair to the Mail (what?), they might just have stumbled across the same journal the original BBC article came from, albeit 8 years later. However, the big problem with that theory is this not-in-any-way-lifted quote about the acronym TTFO (Told to f*** off);

From the BBC:

He told BBC News Online: ‘This guy was asked by the judge what the acronym meant, and luckily for him he had the presence of mind to say: ‘To take fluids orally’.”

And the Mail:

He said: ‘This guy was asked by the judge what the acronym meant, and luckily for him he had the presence of mind to say: ‘To take fluids orally’.’

So, perhaps the Mail came up with this story on their own, and phoned up Dr Fox, who gave word-for-word the same quote as eight years ago. Or, perhaps they’ve seen an eight-year-old story on the BBC website, rearranged some of the paragraphs, changed some of the words, and added a few extra examples. Answers on a postcard.

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

So - it's been banned because of health and safety. That's clear, right?

Well, the statement from Brent Council that inevitably appears at the end of the article suggests it's not quite that clear:

‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago.

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks.

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

Ah. So the organisers missed a five-week deadline for notifying the Council. Not quite health and safety.

But the parade has been banned, hasn't it?

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

Oh.

The man in charge of the parade, Father Hugh MacKenzie, knows the type of quotes that get you in papers such as the Mail, however:

‘The rights of Christians are being overlooked in favour of the rights of Islamic groups and gay rights organisations.

‘One does wonder whether if it was a homosexual rights or Islamic group the council would have been more flexible, as it doesn’t seem like rocket science to permit us to walk 400 metres.

‘The rights of Christians are just not respected in Britain.’

So blame the gays, blame the Muslims, blame health and safety. Don't blame yourself for applying too late for the Council's permission to close the road. And say you can't parade when you can.

The Mail also claims that this parade takes place 'every year' - those are the first two words of the article and they're repeated later in the piece. It appears, however, that the parade last took place in 2008.

Brent Council and the Metropolitan Police have advised and encouraged the organisers of this parade to hold this event as long as they stay on the footpath and the event is stewarded.

We have many other Good Friday Parades happening in Brent including one with twice the number of people and this takes place on the footpath every year avoiding the need for a traffic order.

Traffic orders are there for the safety of the parade participants, the general public and motorists and are needed by any group wanting to take over the highway.

This particular parade has not taken place for around three years.

In the past the police organised the road closures, however, a change in police policy has meant event organisers have to contact their Local Authority five weeks in advance to arrange a road closure.The application for this parade was received 4 April.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

At Aintree yesterday, jockey Peter Toole suffered serious injuries during one race, and two horses died during the running of the Grand National. Time for a discussion about the safety of horse racing? Or, if you're the Mail website, time for an attack on the BBC:

But this information wasn't just shared online. At just before 5pm, Balding told viewers on BBC1:

I'm very sorry to report there were two equine fatalities in this year's Grand National - Ornias and Donney's Gate. And our thoughts are very much with the Mullins family who ownned, trained and rode Dooney's Gate; the Stewart family who owned Ornais; and the stable staff who look after them. It is the worst thing that can happen for all of them.

A few minutes later she added:

You will have gathered as I mentioned earlier the equine fatalities, it was because of those horses on the landing side that two fences were missed on the second circuit. And it does, I'm afraid, put a real dampner on the day. And I'd love to be here jubilant and all excited but it's very hard.

Richard Dunwoody replied:

It's the stable staff you have to feel sorry for - when they're handed the bridle, it's terrible.

The Telegraph also adds a comment from the BBC website's live blog:

the online commentator, Oliver Brett, wrote: “In answer to various requests, we are attempting to find out what happened to the two most serious fallers and their jockeys. We are not ignoring the issue, but don’t want to assume anything until fully aware of the facts.”

Ten minutes later, 45 minutes after the start of the race, the blog did announce the deaths.

While the Mail acknowledges Balding's tweet, it does not report her on-air remarks, or those from the blog.

Two weeks ago, the Mail on Sunday ran a story with the headline: 'The seven months pregnant woman told to give up her British Airways seat… just so Gordon Brown could fly Club Class'.

They trailed their 'exclusive' on the front page, with the main article on page five. The paper wrote:

Gordon Brown sparked a mutiny on a British Airways flight after he was blamed for an attempt to downgrade a heavily pregnant woman and Red Cross doctor into more cramped seats.The extraordinary scenes – dubbed Mutiny On The Brown-ty - unfolded on a flight from Abu Dhabi to London

The paper fails to mention who (in the Mail's newsroom) dubbed it 'Mutiny on the Brown-ty'.

The article included much sound and fury, as did the editorial:

We have pretty much put an end to privilege. The good things in life are obtained through hard work and effort, not through rank and status...

In a contest for a comfortable seat, between a woman a few weeks from giving birth and a man whose undistinguished period in office is already being happily forgotten, most people would know instantly which side to take.

But BA, and Gordon Brown’s aggressive and charmless aide, seem not to have realised this. In fact, a little diplomacy and good manners by the airline and Mr Brown’s assistant might well have resolved the problem.

Equality is a slogan Mr Brown uses plentifully. But it seems he prefers the theory to the practice.

Yet the paper also had a statement from British Airways which seemed to cast some doubt on their version of events:

A spokeswoman for the airline said Mr Brown’s arrival on the flight was a coincidence, and he had been unfairly blamed by the mutinous passengers.

‘The situation had absolutely nothing to do with Gordon Brown,’ she said. ‘We have apologised to [the complainant] and we have offered to pay compensation.

‘It is very rare for a customer not to be able to travel in the cabin that they have booked and we are extremely sorry that this happened on this flight. Gordon Brown and his party were booked in advance and were not involved in any way.’

And:

Mr Brown's office was contacted on Friday. Yesterday afternoon, his spokeswoman sent a text message saying 'I assume you have read the BA statement and are now not ­running the story', making it clear that BA and the former PM's office had been in discussions.

She released a statement that said: 'As BA has made clear, the arrangements were nothing to do with Mr Brown, who had booked his flight and seats well in advance and made no requests for - nor received - any special treatment.

'As BA will confirm, all questions about bookings, overbookings and allocations of seats are not - and could not be - a matter for Mr Brown but for British Airways.'

Despite all that, the paper decided to run the story, with a front page teaser, anyway.

Jeremy Clarkson has been offered £1million to become the face of an adultery website.

Pauley names the website, includes their motto, and repeats lots of quotes from a 'spokeswoman' - it all sounds suspiciously like a copy-and-paste job from a press release. Except for the inevitable (and hardly necessary) 'last sentence clarification':

A spokesman for the Top Gear host said: “Jeremy is on holiday with his family. We won’t be forwarding this offer on to him.”

So the Star gives a dating website some free publicity with a front page story about a 'deal' which isn't a deal at all.

Amy Childs has angrily slammed rumours that she’s the reason Peter Andre split from Elen Rivas.Amy Childs made it clear she is not in a relationship with the singer, fuming: “We’re just good friends”.

So there are no 'red hot nights'. The 'full exclusive' is that they didn't happen. But that's not even the Star's 'exclusive' because at the end, in a plug for one of Richard Desmond's magazines, it says:

Read Amy and Peter’s columns in this week’s edition of new! magazine, out now.

The cross-promotion between Channel 5, the Star and Express and magazines such as OK! and new! - all owned by Desmond - has become ridiculous. And the news that Channel 5 will screen 'reality TV' dead horse Big Brother for the next two years has led to feverish excitement in the, err, Daily Star. The rag has published ten totally unrevealing articles about the show in the last week, including four front pages. They've run lists of 'celebrities' who are 'being considered' for the show along with anonymous quotes from 'TV insiders' - and it isn't even starting for another four months. Imagine what it will be like when it is being broadcast...

Fed-up Cheryl Cole could sensationally snub X Factor supremo Simon Cowell by accepting a £5million deal to host a new-look Big Brother.Geordie babe Cheryl Cole is wanted for the role made famous by Davina McCall when the show returns later this year.

'Could snub'. 'Is wanted'. In the first two sentences, the front page headline is proved to be garbage. Indeed, the Star admitted it was nothing but 'rumours' the next day, with Emma Wall claiming:

Cheryl Cole has fuelled rumours she will be the new Big Brother host by talking about her love of all things British.

How the second equals the first isn't quite clear. But it filled a bit more space in the paper.

Pauley also claimed:

A TV insider said...“There is going to be a real buzz around Big Brother and we’re confident [Cole] will want to be part of that deal.”

It seems that neither the 'TV insider', Pauley, Wall, or anyone else at the Star bothered asking Cole about it, however. If they had, they might have got the same response that the Guardian received:

"Cheryl has not been approached, and she has no interest in presenting Big Brother," said a spokesman for the singer.

...the latest marketing campaign by the label, which specialises in expensive casual fashion, has fallen foul of advertising rules after pushing the boundaries of decency too far.

'Pushing the boundaries of decency too far'. So the Mail wouldn't want to push those boundaries with some leering description of those adverts. Would it?:

The first shows a young woman wearing a short skirt lifted to show her buttocks and the lower section of her knickers. The second shows a group beginning to undress on a beach. One of the men is removing one of the women’s tops. The third shows the group wearing only their underwear.

The fourth advert caused the most concern. It shows a young man and a young woman embracing and kissing. The man is shirtless and the woman wearing only knickers. The side of her breast is clearly visible.

Phwoar, eh? Still, considering the Mail's concern about how this brand is 'selling clothes to your children' at least it wouldn't want to plaster some of the 'boundary pushing' images all over its website, where children might see them, would it?

A report with the heading 'Former Labour MP’s daughter held by Italian police for being drunk told officers 'she was the daughter of Cabinet minister’' incorrectly identified Kathryn Emily Andrews as the daughter of former Labour MP Robert Marshall-Andrews.

In fact, neither Mr Marshall-Andrews nor his daughter Laura were in any way connected to the incident.

We apologise to them for the misunderstanding and any embarrassment caused.